Civil Actions - Nonprofit Organizations - Unauthorized Support of Israeli Settlement Activity (Not On Our Dime Act)
HB1184 amends Maryland law governing the Port of Deposit State Historical Park in Cecil County. The bill changes the planned size of the park from a range of 120 to 150 acres to a smaller range of 12 to 19 acres, and it removes the historic Tome School from the list of required properties to be included. The park remains a State park administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a partnership park intended to educate the public about and preserve and interpret the lives and experiences of Black Americans before and after slavery.
The bill also extends the deadline for the Bainbridge Development Corporation to transfer the designated property to DNR from June 1, 2025 to June 1, 2026. It revises the related statutory language so that any property transferred but not included in the park must still be preserved in perpetuity for its archaeological, historical, and cultural significance. In addition, it changes the purpose of a prior appropriation so that the Governor may include at least $400,000 in the fiscal 2025 budget for a Phase 1 archaeological survey and soil study focused on the Snow Hill site, rather than the broader Tome School and Snow Hill sites.
The bill’s impact is primarily on the Natural Resources Article and on prior enactments from 2022 and 2023 that established and funded the park. It narrows the scope of the land transfer and park footprint, updates the transfer deadline, and refocuses the authorized archaeological funding. It also preserves the requirement that any non-park property transferred to the State be protected for its historical, archaeological, and cultural value.
Because the available context does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, the general sentiment cannot be measured from discussion or roll call data. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a technical and implementation-focused adjustment to an existing park project rather than a policy reversal. The inclusion of an emergency clause suggests an intent to move the changes quickly.
The main points of potential contention are the reduction in the park’s size, the removal of the Tome School from the required park acreage, and the extension of the transfer deadline. Those changes may matter to local stakeholders, preservation advocates, and members of the Bainbridge Development Corporation or Cecil County community who have different views about how much land should be preserved and how the site should be interpreted. The stakeholder advisory committee structure remains in place, indicating continued emphasis on local and historical input.
HB1184 amends § 5-1012(g) of the Natural Resources Article and related uncodified provisions from Chapters 39 of 2022 and 602 of 2023. It reduces the required acreage for the Port of Deposit State Historical Park, removes the Tome School from the mandatory transfer/inclusion language, extends the property transfer deadline by one year, and narrows the scope of the authorized archaeological study funding to the Snow Hill site. The bill also preserves existing protections for any transferred property not included in the park, requiring perpetual preservation for archaeological, historical, and cultural significance.
No committee transcript or vote data is provided, so there is no direct record of support or opposition in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the measure appears largely administrative and corrective, aimed at aligning the park’s statutory framework with current planning and property-transfer realities. The emergency designation suggests urgency and a desire for prompt implementation.
The likely areas of contention are the reduced park acreage, the deletion of the Tome School from the required park components, and the one-year extension for the Bainbridge Development Corporation’s transfer obligation. Preservation advocates may prefer a larger park footprint or broader site inclusion, while others may support the narrower scope as more feasible. Local Cecil County stakeholders, the Bainbridge Development Corporation, and historical preservation interests are the most likely groups to hold differing views.